Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Our
Trust owns (in 'fee) tt1e large ranch (an which we ;;;rtichokes and row cr-o-ps) that lies
between th-e ocean <md the proposed "well that the Ca11fornla--Am?rican Water ComQ@:.D.'L{.
private for profrt pnmoses to use to dlveJi.P.:gfrolateo groundwater from thE!'
The so-caned "envin:>nmenta!l)l superior alternative" ire the-
coastal Wet-er Projet:l EIR ls based upon the- \Uegai taking o-f our water tights. and pumping of oor
percolated grout'ldwater for the economic benefit of The Salinas basin. has been 111
ov-erdraft for over 60 years aM CaUfomH:> taw that ln an percolated
groun<:lwater basin. there is no to take
ttJe an over-drafted, percolated Qroundwater b-asfn, C-aliforrna groundwater law holds
thal the (Katz v. Wa!kJMhaw 141 Cal.
116). fn an Qasirt thera is D.P.:.. .. __ .. ... ..
except those prior th.a:t have .ac;quired or -geined pre-existing,
:approp-tiatiw groundwater W<Itet-rtghts throu:gh prior use< prescrlptive use or Wurt order. Ttli&l is
the situation in ttle over-drafted Salinas percolated grouoowater Msm, there !s no "new"
groundwater underlying the- over-drafted SBnnas aquifers_ Moreover, no Jegal claim or
relationship asserting that water from a distant water project (over 6 miles ftom the proposed Cal-
Am well fB!d to the wbber dam) rf1$Y be credited fur the over-drafted Salinas percolated
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ALT-8
June 2014
Page 51
City of Marina
groundwater basin can be justifted or susiafned.- Ca!r!omia groundwat-er !awrelules such ".voo
doo hydrology" by holdlng that "Walers that have so far left the -bed and othef waters of a stream
$S to have tost their"'c:haracter a:s part of the f!W, and that oo kln.ger :are part of any definite
J.lnQ?tgrnund stream, perco1.ating (Vlnelland !.R. v. A;!U$<0 -LC. 126 Cal. 486}. Not oniy
d{.}eS CalAm have no rlght to ta'ke ground Watei frOm under bur lar\r;is, !:)ut neither ooes. the
MCWRA. MCWRA HAS NO PERCOLATED OVERLYING GROUNDWATER RJGHTS THAT IT
-MAY USE TO GIVE TO fOR EXPOFf( OUT Of TtiE BASrN-. Our fns1 objeclloo to 1his
il!eg-al ptojectand conduct was fl!eO With- th-e CPUC and MC\NRA on November 6. 2005 (see
hereln Incorporated Attachmecl1). Your staf! has not responded aM our concerns have been
Jgnored.
2. <i.t1l!JtlEl
__
The California supreme Court'-s
d-eclsiqn in Save Tliiro V. C1tv ofWtMt H1/rwood, Case NO-- $151402 {October ;;o, 2008},
provides spectftc direction to publll;:' agencies antering Jffio contln_gerrt agreements. ln this
opimon, the Supreme Co-urt --held that the Cit)!. ofWeStHOI!ywood 'had violated CEOA by
enterina into a conditional agreement to sell land and provide- finanein9 la a -de\leltp:ef.be!bre
undertaklog and completing- enYiroomental (CEQA)reVtew. This is e-xactly W:hat th:e MCWRA staff
is asking -the Board toOt>. They want you -to-a-pp-rove their.ptoject wlthou:l a certifted EIR_trorrt-the
QP\JC. One of the proposed MOUs even the fact that it is Gontinge:nt on the
c(;.rtifteation o-f the FEIR by the C.PUC. Monterey CQ{.;1nty ;;tbdiei<ted_!ts ro-te as ilie agency
undlirr CEQA years ago wnen i! agreed to allow theCPUC to prePa:re th-e EJR on the Cc<'!stat
Water Mo111terey Co;;nty 1,; now a a-gency" and while the CP1JC
staff deals Wlth the fact thai its draft ElR is woeruny inadequate because of its f:allure to address
thal fact that none of the public agencies ln 'Montetey County have the riS:hts to pump
-groundwater from an overdtafted basin for the economk: benefit Attachment 2).
further, the Pratt ElR acknowledgs that the prOpoood MOUs and Water ProJect yjotate
MUL TJ?LIE" prQ\li$1Q.ns of-the Gwnerai llie North-County
.e\@n, and -contradicts the express j)Urpose {E'UM!NA T\ON OF INTRUSI-ON} of every
water developmer.t project for whlctl land owners have Men assessed and chatged (and
com1nue to be charged} by Moo*<rey County and the MGWRAfor the past 5{) years, including the
SaUnas VaHey Water_ PrOject
3. It is clear that the MOUs'and the Coastal Watet: Project are being advanced by MCWRA stalf
and C-td-Am jointly .a_slf they are one eotlty. In tact, the proposetJ MOUs advanced bY
1'01CWRA staff advocate a governmei'1tal structure (JPA} that would be Omp!etely immune for the
votes' con:>titutiO-f'la! ngh-ts of initl$:tive, and .r-eferendum. Moreover, thi$ plan to deny the
M-onterey County _J::nlb!ic's righ-t to public owner:;;h.ip Of any new 1firater project was also sectetly
adv-anced fil-($ month ln AssemblY Blll AB419 (Caballero} whe-r'-e-1n iobbylsts got the
Ass'emblywoman to try to change one hundred years of st&le law .b "redefining a JPAwiih a
private, for-profit 1Jtil!ty {Cal-Am) member" as a''publ\c agency'". (See Attachment 3t Thwe
actions by MCWRA staff and -to circumvent and the mandatory CEOA
process for the MOUs and th-e CM$tal Water Project are further re-flected in Attachment 4
wheteln cot.mset for MC\f.JRA requested an extet')slon of time from the SWRCB (on peTTI'iits issued
lo water shortages m the Sannes VsUey-J ro develop "alternative Alth'Ou:gh the
Jetter says that_"there will be no export of groundwater outside of the Salinas that is
exactly what the MOUs and the C-oastal Water Project proposes-... to pump and !:'1.Xport thousands
of .sere feet of groundwa!e.r out of me Sa '!!has t>asln for the benefit of Caf-Jill"L
4, Ourwe!ls :and pumps on our ranch to the location of the proposeQ well fie1ct ar-e
mafntainect afid fully operational. We rely-on our grpunrlwa!e.r and our g:romnt.Vater
rights to operate an:d ptovlde back-up suppifes for our ext-ensive &;lflcuttural.sctivities. MCWRA
nor the cPUC has n-ever contacted -our Boord of Directors. that irt:c!acles farmers (lnclutfmg past
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ALT-8
(continued)
June 2014
Page 52
City of Marina
:presidents of the GrC'Wer-ShJppem Assrq, bankers, and agricultural p;of-esslon:af:s to
-get our input on this proposed taking of our water As ,a result of this lacK of concern for our
property rights, we must assum-e that the County has now assumed an adversary -toward
nur Land Trust .and our grount$.ater right$-. ln MCWRA $taff .recommended that you
Jnclude the are.a in the district for the SVWP- The Gonzales fatm-ers
otl)'ected, your MCWRA staff Ignored them, you got sued an-d the taxpayers ended up paylrtlt the
mu. Froml999- 2005, the owner of Water World objected to the conduct of MCWRA staff a-nd
was ignored by your staff. Thirty (30) tnill!on tloUars later, you lost the !awsuli and the taxpayers
paid the bilt When wilt the taxpayers stop having to pay for poorly conoofved ideas from MCWRA
and Cat-Am?
5. The draft CPUC ElR.margJna!izes the grave and envJronmema! impacts on
groundwater and groundwat-er rights, violations of the Gen&al Plan and Loca! Coastal Plan
po1iCJ'es, and the Illegal violations and takings 01 prWare-ly owned, usufrudory water rights upon
which the Coast<>l water Pro}ect These and the ille-gal Qf thousands
of acre feet of grQundwater from under privately land in an ove-rd:rafted basin ARE
NOT A LESS THAN SJGNtFICANT IMPACTS! This is the prQject that the staff Qf the MCWRA
staffwants the Board to approve without a EIR. (see Attachment 5}. Further, the
Marina Coast water Agency has used up all of rts run allocation of grou.ndwaie.t from the Salinas
Valley groillfldwater basin, and as. an appropriator is not entitled to any more water from ttle
overdr;;;:fted briisin. conWry to !.he information tO- the Associat!otl by
Mr. Curtis Weeks of MCWRA {see Attachment 6) ..
The Ag Land Trust understands that "!here i$ a water shotl:age an the Monterey Peninsula. it has
on fof deeades. Th:at does not the illegal taking of oor water rig"hts for the
benefit of Cal-Am, We ask that the Bna:rd not approve the MOUs or the C03$!al Water
Pfo}ectfu-r the re&sons stated herein.
Respectiull';,
The Board of Directors of the Monterey County Ag Land Trust
CC: CPUC, MCWD; and CaHfomiaAffietican WEter Co.
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ALT-8
(continued)
June 2014
Page 53
Facsimile
{Sa1) 37MJ242
V<aEmaU
Lesie Girard
Assistant County Counsel
County of Monterey
168 W. Ailsa! Street, 3d Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL W. STAMP
479 PaeiftO Slreet. Suile t
Monter-ey, CalifutniB 93940
22, 2010
lrven Grant
Deputy County Counsel
T.etephooe
(631) 373-1214
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
168 W. Ailsa! Street, 3d Floor
SaUnas, CA 93901
Subject March 3, 2010 Public Rel:ords Request; Lack of Adequate Response
Dear Mr. Girard and Mr. Grant:
On March 3, 2D10,this Office made a records requestfor all County records and
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) records as follows;
Our
1. All records that reference the groundwater rights held by the MCWRA or
by Marina Coast Water District, as asserted by Curtis Weeks at the Board
of SupeNisors' hearing on February 26, 2010. (In response to Supervisor
Calcagno's question regarding whether the MCWRA has rights to pump
groundwater lor the proposed Regional Desalination Projecl, Mr. Weeks
had responded in part; "As to wells that are developing basin water, both
ourselves and Marina Coast Water DisltiCI are organizations that can
pump groundwater within tile Salinas basin.")
MCWRA Respoose
On Maroh 12, the MCWRA asked for an additional time to respond, to March 19.
On Fridey, March 19, at 4:46PM, the MCWRA faxed a letter claiming that the March 3
request was ambiguous. MCWRA interpreted our request regarding groundwater
rights to 'mean MCWRA auiholity over groundwater. In this regard. the reference
would be to the Agency Act
PIJlblems Wl!h the MCWRA Response
The MCWRA response is disingenuous. Mr. Weeks stated tl1at 'both ourselves
[MCWRA] and Marina Coast Water District are organizations that can pump
groundwater within the Salinas basin." In order to pump groundwater legally, the
MCWRA must hold rights to that groundwater. The MCWRA Act does not document
such rights. Either {1) the MCWRAdoes not have records that showMCWRA has
City of Marina
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ALT-9
June 2014
Page 54
March 3, 20 10
Leslii> Girard, Assistant County Counsel
lrven Gran!, Deputy Counly Counsel
Pag<a 2
grounowatar rigl11s, or (2) the MCWRil has records !hat show its groundwater rights
and has violated the Public Records Act by not producing them.
As to our recon:ls request siiDwing !he Marlrl!l Coast Water Distncl groundwater
rights. the MCWRA response was "you should contact !hem [MCWDJ." Thai response
is equally disingenuous. On February 28, Mr. Wooks represented to the Board o!
SuperviSors that MC\fi/D "can pump grotli'ldwaler wi!hin the Salinas basin." In order to
pump groundwater legally, MCWD noods rights to do .so. Eilher{1) lhete are no
n;cords !ila( show MCWD holds groundwater rights outside of !he MCWD boundaries,
or (2) MCWAA has such records and Is illegally withholding !hem from the public.
The March i 9, MCWAA response fur!ller slates iha!. Mrc Weeks' February 26
wmmenl- that 'every drop of water that we pump thai is Salinas groundwater will stay
in me Slllinas Groundwater basin'- 'to the design and intent of !he Slllinas River
Project.' Thai response <loos no! make -e becuse the Diversion Project
does nollrwolve any pumping by the MCWRA.
Urgent Reauest
By Wedne<iclay, Marc!l24, please either produce all C
0
un!y and MCWRA
records thai show that MCWRA or MCWD hold groundwalel' rights that C'!l1 be used lor
the Regional Project pumping, or advise us that !here are oo such records. My cien!s
ask the County, the MCWRA and its legal counsel to pay immediate attention to this
requesl To date, the County has not responded!<> the March 3, 2010 request.
although ilis required to resptli'ld. My clients reserve aU rights. and are considering
meir options under the California Public Records Act
Attachments:
A. March 3, 2010 Public Records Request
B. March 12 . 2010 MCWRAresponse
C. March Ht. 2010 MCWRA "'sp<>nse (The fax header reads "CA WATER
RESOURCES AGENCY' The time stamp iS inwrrecl; rt .is one hour slow")
cc: Board of Supmlsors
Curtis Weeks .and Davia Klmhrough, MCWRA
City of Marina
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ALT-9
(continued)
June 2014
Page 55
\lfa Facsimile
LAW OFFICES OF
lV!JCHAEL W. STAMP
Les Girard
1\SslstantCQUOty Course!
County of Monwrey
hvGrant
Dep\Jiy County Counsel
MQnterey County Water Resource Agonr;y
168 W. Alis<>l Street, 3<! FloC>r 168 W 1\!isal Street. 3d Floor
Salinas, CA 93001 Salirtas, CA 93901
Subject: Public Records Request
Dear Mr. 'Girard and Mr. Grant
This Office would like to fnspec! t'le !oll<l'Ning County recordS and County Water
Resources Agency records, atld possihly copy $Q111e of them.
1, AU records that reiefl'1'1Ce the, groundwater rights held by Monterey County
Waler Resources Agency or by Marina Coast Water District, as asserted
attl)e Soard of Supervisors hearing on Friday afternoon, February 26,
2010, by Curtis Weeks, General Manager of the County Water Resources
Agency.
AS further InformatiOn, v.te seek_ aU records on whlch ML Weeks based his
response to Supervisor Calcagno's question regarding whether the Water
Resoorces Agency has r!ghl$ to pump groundwater for !he propo,..,.;
Regional Project Mr, Weeks responded as lollom;
'As to wells tha.t are developlng basi(! water, both
ourselves and Marina Coast Water Distrtct are
organizations that oan pump groundwater within the
Salinas basin. Every drill> o! water !hat we pump lhat
is Salinas groundwater will stay in the Salinas
groundwater basin. Aller the implementation, which
will begin . , actually, the operation of lha Salinas
Valley Water Projeoton the 22"' of April, we'll oe lully
in balanct:L There w!!J be no harm :tO an-y pumpers in
the Saunas Valley,"
2: All teoords that show the! alter !he ini!iali<m of the operation .of the SaMMs
Valley Water Project tl)e Salinas Groundwarer 1:Jas1n will "be fully in
as Mr. Weeks-asserted.
ALT-10
EXHIBIT A \ ,(
City of Marina
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2014
Page 56
March 3, 2010
les Girard. Assistant County Crn.msel
IN Gram. Deputy County Counsel
l'ag" 2
The request incl(lrles a!J email communications ofall kinds, including those. for
example. residing _on personal computers_, on shared :drive{s)f and in archived form.
We request access to the emails in the same format held by the County, (Gov. Code,
6253,9, subd. (a),) I!Jlllead of !llinting out electronic records Qlease Qjaoo them or\
CDs, If !he rer;ol<ls are kept individually, ple.,se copy them as Individual emaiis, and
inclw:lealli>chments attached !o l!Je respective emails.
If you wndupe an E!R. or any lengttw documents in response- please trlentifV the
speCifiC p3f!es on _Whloh the rruponsivelntormaHon is presented.
lftlwre are records that you think might be eliminated from the County
pro<luclion, please let me know. If !he County has allY questions .egardlng lhls request,
please me. We vAll be II"!'''Y to assist the County In making i!s response as
cnmp!ete and elt!Clent as possjb!e.
! draw the County's al!enlion to Government Code section 6253,1, which
requires a pubfic lll)ency to assist !hepubKc in making a focuS<>cl and effective request
by {1} identifying records and information responsive to the request (2) descr)bing the
information technology and physical location of the records, and {;!) providlng
suggestions JorovereOOling any practical basis lor denying access to the records or
lnfoml<llioo sought
If the County determines fual any or all or fue infonnalion Is exempt from
disclosure, ! ask the County ro reconsider !hat determination in viev; of Proposition 59,
which amended tihe stale Constitution Ia require that all exemptions be "nanuwiy
construed." Proposition 59-may modify or overturn authoritieS On Vihieh the County has
relied in the past If the County determines. that any requested records'"" subject to a
sllil""'lid axamption, 1 ask thel: (!)the County exercise its discretion !o disclose some
or all ofili<Hecords notwithstanding the.lmlmp!ion, and (2)wilh respect to records
oonlllining bolh exempt and fJOnexempt conlent !he County redact the exempt content
and disClose the rest.
Should the County deny part or all Q! this request, l!le County is required !o
provide a writlen response describing the legal on which the County relies.
!'lease respond at your earliest opportunity, If you have any questions, pleas
let me know promptly. Thank you for_your p-rofessional
City of Marina
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and A1itigated Negative Declaration
ALT-10
(continued)
June 2014
Page 57
ramll$
(831)37:!-0l'<ll
VIi! Facsimile
LesGirard
LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL W. STAMP
47B Pdc street Sufta 1.
Ca11Wmla93S40
March 3. 2010
lrvGranl
ilME
-
fA>(
TEL
'""'
Oepmy Courey counsel
T:e!cphooe
(a11]27M214
A>slstant Coonty Counsel
County ofMon!et"Y
168 W. Ailsa! Street, $d Floor
SaUnas. CA 93901
Monterey Courrty Water Rl1l!louroe Agency
168W .. Alisal $tree!, 3d Floor
Salinas. CA 93901
Sybject Pu'olio Records Request
Dear Mr. Girard and Mr. Gran!:
This Oi!ico wou.lo n'l<e to inspect t" tonowing County record$ and County Waller
Resources Agency records, and possibiV oopy some o! !l1em,
City of Marina
1. All records !hat reference llle groundwater rights held by Monterey County
Water Resources Agency or by t\arina Coast Water Distrlcl, as. asserted
at the Board of Supervisors hearing on Friday afternoon, February 28,
2010, by Curtls Wee]<s, Geneml Manager of !he County Water Resources
Agency.
As further information, we s""k all records on which Mr. Weel<s based his
response to Supervisor Calcagno's question regarding whether the Water
Resources Agency has righ!s !O pump jjroundw"ler for the propose<!
Reglon"l Project Mr Weeks responded as follows:
"As to wells 111at arc <!eveklpiflil basin water, both
--"" l"-""'-.. ,.,.,..,.,.,... \f,.!,.,,.._-l"'\li-ilrl ...
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ALT-10
(continued)
June 2014
Page 58
MONTEREY COUNTY
WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
MoUy-Ertck,son
Uw_ 011h:e&(lfMidme-l-W. Stamp
479' Pudfic St., Suite- l
Mal:i\<rlly,(YC 9391U
inforrnation we :seck an--re!!Urtfs ou -which Mr- to Supervisor
Ctt1cagno's _quc:s!lon regard _whether the Watcl' ReliUUtCc.s n:s rl-_giH.:s to pump_ gnYI.l!tdWatcr
the- prripblied Rcg:iomti Projcit.'L fr.llms" ''A, tu 'A"t;Hs that nre devdbpitJg h3$in
OOth nursclv::5 nnd Marina that can pt!IDfJ-gtoundwuter
the S:it1in:ar:rB:t.'tin,, will stay in the
ocguL ""''""''" rue o;><rn:tion of tl
"J., A-H records that -slmw Hun a:iicr-the in-illatirm of the upcmlion of the
tl1e Salh\as GrOm'lrlwater oas:i-n will 'be 1\lr. \Vecks -ru;Berted.''
/ -
Publle Recor.d,s: CQordi:J3t-or
ALT-11
City of Marina
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
June 2014
Page 59
Response to Comments on Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
MONTEREY COUNTY
WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
P0(\00!'1$6
CAW&oJ!
FAA
CUP;T'.$ V. W'fK5
,Mo-lly
Law. OffioO!l ofMkhael W. Stamp
479l'ui5oSt., Sulle l
GA .9'194\l
Ret Y oor Public B.eoords A<! Requesl dal<l4 Mmil ), 20 l 0
DarMoUy,
This tettt::r iS in :response t-o. your request. dated Mar..h 3, 20 :J 0, wbercin you
"l. All reoordstliat the &it'o1:uidY.'aler rlghts.1leld by M-o-ntereY County Water Resources
A gooey or by Mru1na Coast Watei Dlsrrict. as A!;Scrted at the Soard ofSupervisQr.S h:ari:n!T'On Friday
memoou, February 26, 2\ll.O, by CUrtis Weoks, Gcnml Manager of tho CouuiyWtti'T\<lsourcos
Ag-em;y,"'
The fmpt part of your b ambiguous, Wherl. you the term tlml re-ference the
wounthvater .righ!sJleld by Montc:rey Couuty Water